On November 20, 2006, a Ventura County California jury convicted Ryan Madden of two separate robberies committed on consecutive days: a second-degree robbery that occurred on February 2, 2005, and a first-degree ATM machine robbery that occurred on February 3, 2005. The jury found the allegation that the robber personally used a firearm during the commission of both offenses to be true.
Ryan was sentenced to a term of 15 years incarceration on January 30, 2007, which he is currently serving at California state prison, Lancaster.
What Went Wrong?
Unfortunately, Ryan was unable to prove his innocence to the jury simply due to sloppy lawyering by his own attorney.
Consider the following facts before completely dismissing that statement as being nothing more than sour grapes coming from someone looking to play the blame game:
- Four separate bank ATM pictures showed the actual robber. Forensic enhancement of these pictures was never performed until AFTER Ryan’s conviction, which proved the robber was someone other than him.
- Subpoenaed phone records existed that verified Ryan’s alibi but were never submitted to the jury by Ryan’s attorney.
- Critical insurance paperwork existed that supported a key witnesses testimony but never submitted to the jury by Ryan’s attorney.
- The prosecutor was able to discredit a key witnesses testimony regarding the alibi timeline BECAUSE this paperwork was never submitted to the jury.
- A former police officer serving as an investigator was never called by Ryan’s attorney to testify the robbery victim identified another person’s picture as being the person who robbed her.
Please note: This website is NOT an attempt to retry this case via the Internet. The jury has spoken. We respect their decision, but realize their verdict was not based upon all of the available information. We are now attempting to have ALL of the information presented to the federal appeals court, who will have the final word.
What The Federal Appeals Court Will Review
Some of the information the federal appeals court will examine is being made available to you right now in abbreviated form. On the following pages of this website, you will learn…
- WHO the ATM bank robber actually is.
- WHAT the jury never got to see or hear before rendering their verdict.
- WHERE Ryan actually was when one of the robberies occurred.
- WHY Ryan’s attorney failed to have ATM pictures analyzed that would have proven his innocence.
- HOW you can ensure the federal appeals court examines proof of innocence the jury never saw.
- WHEN Ryan’s case has a chance to be heard at the federal appellate level.
Supporting Facts: ATM Robbery
Ryan presented a mis-identification defense for the ATM robbery and steadfastly maintains that the person in the ATM surveillance photos is James H, not him [Full last name intentionally withheld]. Ryan’s attorney, Steve Meister, failed to conduct an investigation necessary to support that defense by failing to pursue a forensic examination of the ATM surveillance photos.
Had Meister conducted this investigation, it would have resulted in conclusive scientific evidence proving that the robber in the ATM pictures was 5’7″ 3/4, which was 2.99 inches shorter than Ryan. The jury surely would have had doubts about Ryan’s guilt if they saw this evidence.
Side note: James H. listed himself on his California drivers license as being 5’8″ tall.
Forensic analysis of the ATM photos would have also revealed that no facial measurements taken by examiners from the ATM suspects picture matched Ryan’s facial measurements.
Even though time stamped video tape evidence taken from the ATM revealed the victim only saw the robber for 4 seconds during the holdup, the victim testified the robber was holding a gun in his left hand.
Testimony on the witness stand revealed that James H. is left-handed, while Ryan Madden is dominant right-handed.
Twelve minutes after the robbery, James H. was identified by a mini-mart clerk as being the person making a purchase with a credit card stolen moments earlier from the ATM victim. The clerk also testified that James H. was wearing a camouflage jacket and ball cap similar to the one the suspect was wearing in the ATM photos. This clerk also testified he had seen James on four or five previous occasions, which eliminates the likelihood of a mistaken identity.
Supporting Facts: Candy Cottage Robbery
Ryan presented an alibi defense to the candy cottage robbery, as he was verifiably 33 miles away from the scene of the crime at a mobile home in Pacific Palisades all day with Elexis Witness at the time of this robbery.
Steve Meister failed to provide the jury with telephone records and car rental receipts that would have corroborated and confirmed the date of the events to the jury that established Ryan’s alibi.
Ryan’s mother, Kathy, called his cell phone at 4:23 PM on February 2, 2005, which was one hour and 23 minutes after the Candy Cottage robbery. This date and time was listed on the cell phone bill, which was the only call she placed to his cell phone in a seven day period leading up to the crime and after.
The purpose of her call was to remind him to return the rental car the following day. Car rental receipts verify the due date as well.
Had the jury seen the cell phone records and car rental receipts, the prosecutors claim to the jury would have been undermined when claiming that Kathy’s recollection of the date was unreliable.
Meister also failed to introduce evidence that the victim of the candy cottage robbery retracted her identification of Ryan being the robber and instead identified James H. as the person who robbed her.
Had the jury heard this testimony, the credibility and certainty of the eyewitness identification would have rightfully been called into question. After all, the acceptable standard to convict a person is there must be a Certainty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – which would have been lacking if the jury knew the witness also identified another person to an investigator before changing her story.